Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited & Anor

Relief from sanctions for late service of particulars of claim requires application of the three-stage Denton approach. The court must assess the seriousness and significance of the breach, identify any good reason for it, and evaluate all the circumstances. The merits may be considered at the final stage where the claim is plainly very strong or very weak without detailed investigation. An admission of liability may be a significant circumstance, even if permission is unnecessary to withdraw it, particularly where its withdrawal has no factual explanation. The risk that striking out will lead to further proceedings, abuse-of-process arguments and possible permanent loss of the claim may also be relevant, but is not decisive alone.

The claimant sought an extension of time to serve particulars of claim on two defendants. The claim concerned alleged property damage caused by road resurfacing works. The particulars were due in July 2023 but were served much later. The first defendant obtained a strike-out order from Bright J. The second defendant made a separate strike-out application.

The claimant relied principally on an earlier admission of liability by the first defendant’s loss adjuster. The admission was later withdrawn without explaining any factual defence on liability. No equivalent admission existed in relation to the second defendant. The central issue was whether relief from sanctions should be granted under the Denton principles.

1. Outcome. The claimant’s application succeeded against the first defendant. The strike-out order made by Bright J was set aside and time for service of the particulars of claim was extended. The application against the second defendant failed, and the claim against that defendant was struck out.
2. Applicable test. The court applied the three stages identified in Hysaj, summarising Denton: assess the seriousness and significance of the breach; identify why it occurred; and evaluate all the circumstances, including the need for efficient and proportionate litigation and compliance with rules and orders. The failure to serve particulars on time was serious. No good reason was established. The claimant’s solicitors misunderstood the applicable rules, ignored a reminder, and the bereavement relied upon did not explain the earlier default.
3. Merits. The court could consider whether the claim was very strong or very weak where that was apparent without much investigation. It was not necessary for the merits to satisfy the summary-judgment threshold. The first defendant’s earlier admission of liability, made by an experienced loss adjuster, was therefore relevant despite being capable of withdrawal without permission under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 14. Its unexplained withdrawal, together with the pleaded liability case and absence of an identified factual defence, made the claim appear very strong on the material before the court.
4. Consequences of strike-out. The possibility that a fresh claim would generate further expense and an abuse-of-process strike-out application, potentially resulting in permanent loss of the claim, was relevant to proportionality. It was not sufficient by itself, but materially reinforced the case for relief against the first defendant.
5. Second defendant. The claimant had no admission and no plainly strong case against the second defendant. The defence raised potentially meritorious arguments concerning the first defendant’s role and selection. The factors favouring relief against the first defendant were absent, so strike-out was appropriate.

First-instance decision. The judgment records that Bright J had previously struck out the claim against the first defendant on the papers. That order was set aside by this court.